Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Toronto Maple Leafs

    jedi17
    jedi17
    Moderator
    Moderator


    Posts : 10738
    Join date : 2013-02-20

      Toronto Maple Leafs  Empty Toronto Maple Leafs

    Post by jedi17 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 7:44 pm

    Where the Eye Test Meets the Numbers
    June 19, 2017, 11:25 AM ET [269 Comments]
    Lucas Neilson
    Toronto Maple Leafs Blogger • RSS • Archive • CONTACT
    In general, I appreciate what the stats community is trying to do. I think that trying to give teams any kind of quantifiable data they can use to assist in assessment of player personnel is a boon.

    Where I think the disconnect happens is when people don't balance what they actually see on the ice with what some advanced stats seem to suggest.

    Exhibit A: Martin Marincin. I have read a few write-ups over the last few weeks trying to defend Marincin as a good (some even say very good) player because "stats say so". I just don't comprehend how anyone who watched the games this past season could think he's anything less than a fringe #7 on a half-decent team. I don't think he is good. In fact, I think he's quite bad. He's soft, mentally weak, makes glaring errors and is just an overall weak player. Check some of the stat lines, however, and he looks like a perfectly viable top 4 Dman. It's clear that there's a problem here.

    Not nearly as bad, but definitely worth talking about is Exhibit B.

    Exhibit B: Jake Gardiner. I think he's an above average player and certainly a top 4 Dman. That said, I think the advanced stats tend to make him look a lot better than he is. There are a lot of shifts where he is directly responsible for goals against, turnovers, generally unintelligent plays. He also has many where he is directly responsible for zone exits, holding the blue line in the O Zone, and driving offense. However, advanced stats would suggest he's in the upper echelon of the league for defensemen, and I just don't think that's true. I think he's a tier below that. A solid middle pair guy. His hockey IQ seems awfully low, and some of his on-ice decisions are simply baffling. So while I feel he is a top 4, and a pretty good defender, I think the stats paint him as a much better player than he is.

    My point is simply this: It is important to identify and walk the fine line where the eye test meets the numbers. I don't feel you can blindly follow just one of them. Doing the former is a Brian Burke thing, and you end up effectively trading picks that become Rickard Rakell and John Gibson for Tyler Biggs. Doing the latter is what gets you sparkling assessments of fringe NHLers like Martin Marincin. In my opinion, you need a healthy balance of both.

      Current date/time is Mon 15 Apr 2024, 12:39 am